If any person was to judge of the nature and spirit of the Christian religion, by the spirit and conduct only of too many who have professed to believe it in all nations, and almost throughout all ages of the Christian church, he could scarce fail to censure it as an institution unworthy the God of order and peace, subversive of the welfare and happiness of societies, and designed to enrich and aggrandize a few only, at the expence of the liberty, reason, consciences, substance, and lives of others. For what confusions and calamities, what ruins and desolations, what rapines and murders, have been introduced into the world, under the “pretended authority” of Jesus Christ, and supporting and propagating Christianity? What is the best part of our ecclesiastical history, better than an history of the pride and ambition, the avarice and tyranny, the treachery and cruelty of some, and of the persecutions and dreadful miseries of others? And what could an unprejudiced person, acquainted with this melancholy truth, and who had never seen the sacred records, nor informed himself from thence of the genuine nature of Christianity, think, but that it was one of the worst religions in the world, as tending to destroy all natural sentiments of humanity and compassion, and inspiring its votaries with that “wisdom which is from beneath,” and which is “earthly, sensual, and devilish!” If this charge could be justly fixed upon the religion of Christ, it would be unworthy the regard of every wise and good man, and render it both the interest and duty of every nation in the world to reject it.
It must be allowed by all who know any thing of the progress of the Christian religion, that the first preachers and propagators of it, used none of the vile methods of persecution and cruelty to support and spread it. Both their doctrines and lives destroy every suspicion of this nature; and yet in their times the beginnings of this spirit appeared: “Diotrephes loved the pre-eminence,” and, therefore, would not own and receive the inspired apostle. We also read, that there were great divisions and schisms in the church of Corinth, and that many grievous disorders were caused therein, by their ranking themselves under different leaders and heads of parties, one being for Paul, another for Apollos, and others for Cephas. These animosities were with difficulty healed by the apostolic authority; but do not, however, appear to have broken out into mutual hatreds, to the open disgrace of the Christian name and profession. The primitive Christians seem for many years generally to have maintained the warmest affection for each other, and to have distinguished themselves by their mutual love, the great characteristic of the disciples of Christ. The gospels, and the epistles of the apostles, all breathe with this amiable spirit, and abound with exhortations to cultivate this God-like disposition. It is reported of St. John,[57] that in his extreme old age at Ephesus, being carried into the church by the disciples, upon account of his great weakness, he used to say nothing else, every time he was brought there, but this remarkable sentence, “Little children, love one another.” And when some of the brethren were tired with hearing so often the same thing, and asked him, “Sir, why do you always repeat this sentence?” he answered, with a spirit worthy an apostle, “It is the command of the Lord, and the fulfilling of the law.” Precepts of this kind so frequently inculcated, could not but have a very good influence in keeping alive the spirit of charity and mutual love. And, indeed, the primitive Christians were so very remarkable for this temper, that they were taken notice of on this very account, and recommended even by their enemies as patterns of beneficence and kindness.
But at length, in the second century, the spirit of pride and domination appeared publicly, and created great disorders and schisms amongst Christians. There had been a controversy of some standing, on what day Easter should be celebrated. The Asiatic churches thought that it ought to be kept on the same day on which the Jews held the passover, the fourteenth day of Nisan, their first month, on whatsoever day of the week it should fall out. The custom of other churches was different, who kept the festival of Easter only on that Lord’s day which was next after the fourteenth of the moon. This controversy appears at first view to be of no manner of importance, as there is no command in the sacred writings to keep this festival at all, much less specifying the particular day on which it should be celebrated. Eusebius tells us[58] from Irenæus, that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, came to Anicetus, bishop of Rome, on account of this very controversy; and that though they differed from one another in this and some other lesser things, yet they embraced one another with a kiss of peace; Polycarp neither persuading Anicetus to conform to his custom, nor Anicetus breaking off communion with Polycarp, for not complying with his. This was a spirit and conduct worthy these Christian bishops: but Victor, the Roman prelate, acted a more haughty and violent part; for after he had received the letters of the Asiatic bishops, giving their reasons for their own practice, he immediately excommunicated all the churches of Asia, and those of the neighbouring provinces, for heterodoxy; and by his letters declared all the brethren unworthy of communion. This conduct was greatly displeasing to some other of the bishops, who exhorted him to mind the things that made for peace, unity, and Christian love. [I]Irenæus especially, in the name of all his brethren, the bishops of France, blamed him for thus censuring whole churches of Christ, and puts him in mind of the peaceable spirit of several of his predecessors, who did not break off communion with their brethren upon account of such lesser differences as these. Indeed, this action of pope Victor was a very insolent abuse of excommunication; and is an abundant proof that the simplicity of the Christian faith was greatly departed from; in that, heterodoxy and orthodoxy were made to depend on conformity or non-conformity to the modes and circumstances of certain things, when there was no shadow of any order for the things themselves in the sacred writings; and that the lust of power, and the spirit of pride, had too much possessed some of the bishops of the Christian church. The same Victor also excommunicated one Theodosius, for being unsound in the doctrine of the Trinity.[59]
However, it must be owned, in justice to some of the primitive fathers, that they were not of Victor’s violent and persecuting spirit. Tertullian, who flourished under Severus, in his book to Scapula, tells us, “Every one hath a natural right to worship according to his own persuasion; for no man’s religion can be hurtful or profitable to his neighbour; nor can it be a part of religion to compel men to religion, which ought to be voluntarily embraced, and not through constraint.” Cyprian, also, agrees with Tertullian his master. In his letter to Maximus[60] the presbyter, he says, “It is the sole prerogative of the Lord, to whom the iron rod is committed, to break the earthen vessels. The servant cannot be greater than his lord; nor should any one arrogate to himself, what the Father hath committed to the Son only, viz. to winnow and purge the floor, and separate, by any human judgment, the chaff from the wheat. This is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, and proceeds from wicked madness. And, whilst some are always assuming to themselves more dominion than is consistent with justice, they perish from the church; and whilst they insolently extol themselves, they lose the light of truth, being blinded by their own haughtiness.” To these I shall add Lactantius,[61] though forty years later than Cyprian. “They are convinced,” says he, “that there is nothing more excellent than religion, and therefore think that it ought to be defended with force. But they are mistaken, both in the nature of religion, and in the proper methods to support it: for religion is to be defended, not by murder, but persuasion; not by cruelty, but patience; not by wickedness, but faith. Those are the methods of bad men; these of good. If you attempt to defend religion by blood, and torments, and evil, this is not to defend, but to violate and pollute it: for there is nothing should be more free than the choice of our religion; in which, if the consent of the worshipper be wanting, it becomes entirely void and ineffectual. The true way, therefore, of defending religion, is by faith, a patient suffering and dying for it: this renders it acceptable to God, and strengthens its authority and influence.” This was the persuasion of some of the primitive fathers: but of how different a spirit were others!
As the primitive Christians had any intervals from persecution, they became more profligate in their morals, and more quarrelsome in their tempers. As the revenues of the several bishops increased, they grew more ambitious, less capable of contradiction, more haughty and arrogant in their behaviour, more envious and revengeful in every part of their conduct, and more regardless of the simplicity and gravity of their profession and character. The accounts I have before given of them from Cyprian and Eusebius before the Dioclesian persecution, to which I might add the latter one of St. Jerom,[62] are very melancholy and affecting, and shew how vastly they were degenerated from the piety and peaceable spirit of many of their predecessors, and how ready they were to enter into the worst measures of persecution, could they but have got the opportunity and power.
Under Constantine the emperor, when the Christians were restored to full liberty, their churches rebuilt, and the imperial edicts every where published in their favour, they immediately began to discover what spirit they were of; as soon as ever they had the temptations of honour and large revenues before them. Constantine’s letters are full proof of the jealousies and animosities that reigned amongst them.[63] In his letters to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, he tells him, that he had been informed that Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage, had been accused of many crimes by some of his colleagues, bishops of Africa; and that it was very grievous to him to see so great a number of people divided into parties, and the bishops disagreeing amongst themselves.[64] And though the emperor was willing to reconcile them by a friendly reference of the controversy to Miltiades and others; yet, in spite of all his endeavours, they maintained their quarrels and factious opposition to each other, and through secret grudges and hatred would not acquiesce in the sentence of those he had appointed to determine the affair. So that, as he complained to Chrestus bishop of Syracuse, those who ought to have maintained a brotherly affection and peaceable disposition towards each other, did in a scandalous and detestable manner separate from one another, and gave occasion to the common enemies of Christianity to deride and scoff at them. For this reason, he summoned a council to meet at Arles in France, that after an impartial hearing of the several parties, this controversy, which had been carried on for a long while in a very intemperate manner, might be brought to a friendly and Christian compromise. [J]Eusebius[65] farther adds, that he not only called together councils in the several provinces upon account of the quarrels that arose amongst the bishops, but that he himself was present in them, and did all he could to promote peace amongst them. However, all he could do had but little effect; and it must be owned that he himself greatly contributed to prevent it, by his large endowment of churches, by the riches and honours which he conferred on the bishops, and especially by his authorizing them to sit as judges upon the consciences and faith of others; by which he confirmed them in a worldly spirit, the spirit of domination, ambition, pride, and avarice, which hath in all ages proved fatal to the peace and true interest of the Christian church.
In the first edict, given us at large by Eusebius,[66] published in favour of the Christians, he acted the part of a wise, good, and impartial governor; in which, without mentioning any particular sects, he gave full liberty to all Christians, and to all other persons whatsoever, of following that religion which they thought best. But this liberty was of no long duration, and soon abridged in reference both to the Christians and heathens. For although in this first mentioned edict he orders the churches and effects of the Christians in general to be restored to them, yet in one immediately following he confines this grant to the Catholic church. After this, in a letter to Miltiades bishop of Rome, complaining of the differences fomented by the African bishops, he lets him know, that he had so great a reverence for the Catholic church, that he would not have him suffer in any place any schism or difference whatsoever. In another to Cæcilianus bishop of Carthage,[67] after giving him to understand, that he had ordered Ursus to pay his reverence three thousand pieces, and Heraclides to disburse to him whatever other sums his reverence should have occasion for; he orders him to complain of all persons who should go on to corrupt the people of the most holy Catholic church by any evil and false doctrine, to Anulinus the pro-consul, and Patricius, to whom he had given instructions on this affair, that if they persevered in such madness they might be punished according to his orders. It is easy to guess what the Catholic faith and church meant, viz. that which was approved by the bishops, who had the greatest interest in his favour.
As to the Heathens,[68] soon after the settlement of the whole empire under his government, he sent into all the provinces Christian presidents, forbidding them, and all other officers of superior dignity, to sacrifice, and confining to such of them as were Christians the honours due to their characters and stations; hereby endeavouring to support the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world, by motives purely worldly, viz. the prospects of temporal preferments and honours; and notwithstanding the excellent law he had before published, that every one should have free exercise of his own religion, and worship such gods as they thought proper, he soon after prohibited the old religion,[69] viz. the worship of idols in cities and country; commanding that no statues of the gods should be erected, nor any sacrifices offered upon their altars. And yet, notwithstanding this abridgment of the liberty of religion, he declares in his letters afterwards, written to all the several governors of his provinces,[70] that though he wished the ceremonies of the temples, and the power of darkness were wholly removed, he would force none, but that every one should have the liberty of acting in religion as he pleased.
It is not to be wondered at, that the persons who advised these edicts to suppress the ancient religion of the heathens, should be against tolerating any other amongst themselves, who should presume to differ from them in any articles of the Christian religion they had espoused; because if erroneous and false opinions in religion, as such, are to be prohibited or punished by the civil power, there is equal reason for persecuting a Christian, whose belief is wrong, and whose practice is erroneous, as for persecuting persons of any other false religion whatsoever; and the same temper and principles that lead to the latter, will also lead to and justify the former. And as the civil magistrate, under the direction of his priests, must always judge for himself what is truth and error in religion, his laws for supporting the one, and punishing the other, must always be in consequence of this judgment. And therefore if Constantine and his bishops were right in prohibiting heathenism by civil laws, because they believed it erroneous and false, Dioclesian and Licinius, and their priests, were equally right in prohibiting Christianity by civil laws, because they believed it not only erroneous and false, but the highest impiety and blasphemy against their gods, and even a proof of atheism itself. And by the same rule every Christian, that hath power, is in the right to persecute his Christian brother, whenever he believes him to be in the wrong. And in truth, they seem generally to have acted upon this principle; for which party soever of them could get uppermost, was against all toleration and liberty for those who differed from them, and endeavoured by all methods to oppress and destroy them.
The sentiments of the primitive Christians, at least for near three centuries, in reference to the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, were, generally speaking, pretty uniform; nor do there appear to have been any public quarrels about this article of the Christian faith.[71] Some few persons, indeed, differed from the commonly received opinion. One Theodotus a tanner, under the reign of Commodus, asserted Christ was a mere man, and on this account was excommunicated, with other of his followers, by pope Victor, who appears to have been very liberal in his censures against others. Artemon propagated the same erroneous opinion under Severus. Beryllus[72] also, an Arabian bishop under Gordian, taught, “that our Saviour had no proper personal subsistence before his becoming man, nor any proper godhead of his own, but only the Father’s godhead residing in him;” but afterwards altered his opinion, being convinced of his error by the arguments of Origen. [K]Sabellius[73] also propagated much the same doctrine, denying also the real personality of the Holy Ghost. After him Paulus Samosatenus,[74] bishop of Antioch, and many of his clergy, publicly avowed the same principles concerning Christ, and were excommunicated by a large council of bishops. But though these excommunications, upon account of differences in opinion, prove that the bishops had set up for judges of the faith, and assumed a power and dominion over the consciences of others, yet as they had no civil effects, and were not enforced by any penal laws, they were not attended with any public confusions, to the open reproach of the Christian church.
But when once Christianity was settled by the laws of the empire, and the bishops free to act as they pleased, without any fear of public enemies to disturb and oppress them, they fell into more shameful and violent quarrels, upon account of their differences concerning the nature and dignity of Christ.[75] The controversy first began between Alexander bishop of Alexandria, and [L]Arius,[76] one of his presbyters, and soon spread itself into other churches, enflaming bishops against bishops, who out of a pretence to support divine truth excited tumults, and entertained irreconcileable hatreds towards one another. These divisions of the prelates set the Christian people together by the ears, as they happened to favour their different leaders and heads of parties; and the dispute was managed with such violence, that it soon reached the whole Christian world, and gave occasion to the heathens in several places to ridicule the Christian religion upon their public theatres.[77] How different were the tempers of the bishops and clergy of these times from the excellent spirit of Dionysius bishop of Alexandria, in the reign of Decius, who writing to Novatus upon account of the disturbance he had raised in the church of Rome, by the severity of his doctrine, in not admitting those who lapsed into idolatry in times of persecution ever more to communion, though they gave all the marks of a true repentance and conversion, tells him, “one ought to suffer any thing in the world rather than divide the church of God.”
The occasion of the Arian controversy[78] was this.[79] Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, speaking in a very warm manner concerning the Trinity before the presbyters and clergy of his church, affirmed there was “an Unity in the Trinity,” and particularly that “the Son was co-eternal and consubstantial, and of the same dignity with the Father.” Arius, one of his presbyters, thought that the bishop, by this doctrine, was introducing the Sabellian heresy, and therefore opposed him, arguing in this manner: “If the Father begot the Son, he who was begotten must have a beginning of his existence; and from hence,” says he, “it is manifest, that there was a time when he was not; the necessary consequence of which” he affirmed was this,[80] “that he had his subsistence out of things not existing.” Sozomen adds farther, that he asserted, “that by virtue of his free-will the Son was capable of vice as well as virtue; and that he was the mere creature and work of God.” The bishop being greatly disturbed by these expressions of Arius, upon account of the novelty of them, and not able to bear such an opposition from one of his presbyters to his own principles, commanded (“admonished, as president of the council, to whom it belonged to enjoin silence, and put an end to the dispute”) Arius to forbear the use of them, and to embrace the doctrine of the consubstantiality and co-eternity of the Father and the Son. But Arius was not thus to be convinced, especially as a great number of the bishops and clergy were of his opinion, and supported him; and for this reason himself and the clergy of his party were excommunicated, and expelled the church, in a council of near an hundred of the Egyptian and Lybian bishops met together for that purpose, by the bishop, who in this case was both party and judge, the enemy and condemner of Arius. Upon this treatment Arius and his friends sent circular letters to the several bishops of the church, giving them an account of their faith, and desiring that if they found their sentiments orthodox, they would write to Alexander in their favour; if they judged them wrong, they would give them instructions how to believe. Thus was the dispute carried into the Christian church, and the bishops being divided in their opinions, some of them wrote to Alexander not to admit Arius and his party into communion without renouncing their principles, whilst others of them persuaded him to act a different part. The bishop not only followed the advice of the former, but wrote letters to the several bishops not to communicate with any of them, nor to receive them if they should come to them, nor to credit Eusebius,[81] nor any other person that should write to them in their behalf, but to avoid them as the enemies of God, and the corrupters of the souls of men; and not so much as to salute them, or to have any communion with them in their crimes. Eusebius,[82] who was bishop of Nicomedia, sent several letters to Alexander, exhorting him to let the controversy peaceably drop, and to receive Arius into communion; but finding him inflexible to all his repeated entreaties, he got a synod to meet in Bithynia, from whence they wrote letters to the other bishops, to engage them to receive the Arians to their communion, and to persuade Alexander to do the same. But all their endeavours proved ineffectual, and by these unfriendly dealings the parties grew more enraged against each other, and the quarrel became incurable.
It is, I confess, not a little surprising, that the whole Christian world should be put into such a flame upon account of a dispute of so very abstruse and metaphysical a nature, as this really was in the course and management of it. Alexander’s doctrine, as Arius represents it in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia,[83] was this: “God is always, and the Son always. The same time the Father, the same time the Son. The Son co-exists with God unbegottenly, being ever begotten, being unbegottenly begotten. That God was not before the Son, no not in conception, or the least point of time, he being ever God, ever a Son: for the Son is out of God himself.” Nothing could be more inexcusable, than the tearing the churches in pieces upon account of such high and subtle points as these, except the conduct of Arius, who on the other hand asserted, as Alexander, his bishop, in his letter to the bishop of Constantinople,[84] tells us, “that there was a time when there was no Son of God, and that he who before was not, afterwards existed; being made, whensoever he was made, just as any man whatsoever; and that therefore he was of a mutable nature, and equally receptive of vice and virtue,” and other things of the like kind. If these were the things taught, and publicly avowed by Alexander and Arius, as each represents the other’s principles, I persuade myself, that every sober man will think they both deserved censure, for thus leaving the plain account of scripture, introducing terms of their own invention into a doctrine of pure revelation, and at last censuring and writing one against another, and dividing the whole church of Christ upon account of them.
But it is no uncommon thing for warm disputants to mistake and misrepresent each other; and that this was partly the case in the present controversy, is, I think, evident beyond dispute; Alexander describing the opinions of Arius, not as he held them himself, but according to the consequences he imagined to follow from them. Thus Arius asserted, “the Son hath a beginning, and is from none of the things that do exist;” not meaning that he was not from everlasting, before ever the creation, time, and ages had a being, or that he was created like other beings, or that like the rest of the creation he was mutable in his nature. Arius expressly declares the contrary, before his condemnation by the council of Nice, in his letter to Eusebius, his intimate friend, from whom he had no reason to conceal his most secret sentiments, and says,[85] “This is what we have and do profess, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any manner a part of the unbegotten God, nor from any part of the material world, but that by the will and council of the Father he existed before all times and ages, perfect God, the only begotten and unchangeable, and that therefore before he was begotten or formed he was not,” i. e. as he explains himself, “there never was a time when he was unbegotten.” His affirming therefore that the Son had a beginning, was only saying, that he was in the whole of his existence from the Father, as the origin and fountain of his being and deity, and not any denial of his being from before all times and ages; and his saying that he was no part of God, nor derived from things that do exist, was not denying his generation from God before all ages, or his being completely God himself, or his being produced after a more excellent manner than the creatures; but that as he was always from God, so he was different both from him, and all other beings, and a sort of middle nature between God and his creatures; whose beginning, as Eusebius of Nicomedia writes to Paulinus,[86] bishop of Tyre, was “not only inexplicable by words, but unconceivable by the understanding of men, and by all other beings superior to men, and who was formed after the most perfect likeness to the nature and power of God.” This is the strongest evidence that neither Arius nor his first friends put the Son upon a level with the creatures, but that they were in many respects of the same sentiments with those who condemned them. Thus Alexander declares the Son to be “before all ages.” Arius expressly says the same, that he was “before all times and ages.” Alexander, that “he was begotten, not out of nothing, but from the Father who was.” Arius, that “he was the begotten God, the Word from the Father.” Alexander says, “the Father, only, is unbegotten.” Arius, that “there never was a time when the Son was not begotten.” Alexander, that “the subsistence of the Son is inexplicable even by angels.” Eusebius, that “his beginning is inconceivable and inexplicable by men and angels.” Alexander, that “the Father was always a Father because of the Son.” Arius, that “the Son was not before he was begotten;” and, that “he was, from before all ages, the begotten Son of God.” Alexander, that “he was of an unchangeable nature.” Arius, that “he was unchangeable.” Alexander, that “he was the unchangeable image of his Father.” Eusebius, that “he was made after the perfect likeness of the disposition and power of him that made him.” Alexander, that “all things have received their essence from the Father through the Son.” Arius, that “God made by the Word all things in heaven and earth.” Alexander, that “the Word, who made all things, could not be of the same nature with the things he made.” Arius, that “he was the perfect creature or production of God, but not as one of the creatures.”[87] Arius, again, that “the Son was no part of God, nor from any thing that did exist.” Alexander, that “the only begotten nature was a middle nature, between the unbegotten Father, and the things created by him out of nothing.” And yet, notwithstanding all these things, when Alexander gives an account of the principles of Arius to the bishops, he represents them in all the consequences he thought fit to draw from them, and charges him with holding, that the Son was made like every other creature, absolutely out of nothing, and that therefore his nature was mutable, and susceptive equally of virtue and vice; with many other invidious and unscriptural doctrines, which Arius plainly appears not to have maintained or taught.
I do not, however, imagine that Alexander and Arius were of one mind in all the parts of this controversy. They seemed to differ in the following things. Particularly about the strict eternity of the generation of the Son. Alexander affirmed, that it was “absolutely without beginning;” and, that there was no imaginary point of time in which the Father was prior to the Son; and, that the soul could not conceive or think of any distance between them. Arius, on the other hand, maintained, “The Son hath a beginning, there was a time when he was not;” by which he did not mean, that he was not before all times and ages, or the creation of the worlds visible and invisible; but that the very notion of begetting and begotten doth necessarily, in the very nature of things, imply, that the begetter must be some point of time, at least in our conception, prior to what is begotten. And this is agreeable to the ancient doctrine of the primitive fathers. They held, indeed, many of them,[88] such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Novatian, Lactantius, &c. that Logos, i. e. power, wisdom, and reason, existed in God the Father strictly from eternity, but without any proper hypostasis or personality of its own. But that before the creation of the worlds, God the Father did emit, or produce, or generate this Logos, reason or wisdom; whereby, what was before the internal Logos, or wisdom of the Father, existing eternally in and inseparably from him, had now its proper hypostasis, subsistence, or personality. Not that the Father hereby became “destitute of reason,” but that this production proceeded after an ineffable and inexplicable manner. And this production of the Word some of them never scrupled to affirm was posterior to the Father, and that the Father was prior to the Son as thus begotten. They considered the Son under a twofold character, as the reason, and as the word of God. As “the reason of God,” he was eternally in the Father, “unoriginated, unbegotten, underived.” As “the word of God,” he was Missus, Creatus, Genitus, Prolatus, and received his distinct subsistence and personality then, when God said, “Let there be light;” and on this account the Father was, as Novatian speaks, “as a Father prior to the Son.” And, as Tertullian says, “God is a Father and a Judge. But it doth not thence follow that he was always a Father and always a Judge, because always God: for he could not be a Father before the Son, nor a Judge before the offence. But there was a time when there was no offence, and when the Son was not, by which God became a Judge and Father.”
Another thing in which Alexander and Arius differed, was in the use of certain words, describing the production and generation of the Son of God. Alexander denied that he was made or created, and would not apply to him any word by which the production of the creatures was denoted. Whereas Arius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, did not scruple to affirm that he was created, founded, and the like. And for this they quoted that passage, Prov. vii. 22, &c. as rendered by the LXX. “The Lord created me the beginning of his way, he founded me before the age, and begat me before all the hills.” They did not, however, hereby put him upon a level with the creatures. For though Arius says, he was the “perfect creature of God,” yet he immediately subjoins, “yet not as one of the creatures;” and affirms that he was “begotten not in time,” or “before all time,” which could not be affirmed of the creatures. And his friend Eusebius says, that he was “created, founded, and begotten with an unchangeable and ineffable nature.” Nor were the primitive fathers afraid to use such-like words. Justin Martyr says, he was “the first production of God,” Apol. I. c. 66. Tatian, that he was “the first born work of the Father.” Tertullian, that Sophia was “formed the second person.” And indeed most of the primitive fathers expounded the before-mentioned passage of the Proverbs of the eternal generation of the Son, and thereby allowed him to be “created and founded.”
Another thing in which Alexander and Arius seemed to differ, was about the voluntary generation of the Son of God. Alexander doth not, I think, expressly deny this, but seems to intimate, that the generation of the Son was necessary. Thus he says of the Son, “He is like to the Father, and inferior only in this, that he is not unbegotten,” or “that the Father only is unbegotten;” the consequence of which seems to be, that he apprehended his generation as necessary as the essence of the Father. Arius on the contrary, and his friends, affirmed, that “he was begotten by the will of the Father;” a doctrine not new nor strange in the primitive church. Justin Martyr, speaking of the Word, says,[89] “this virtue was begotten by the Father by his power and will.” And again, explaining the scripture Gen. xix. 24. “The Lord rained down fire from the Lord from heaven,” he says, “There was one Lord on earth, and another in heaven, who was the Lord of that Lord who appeared on earth;[90] as his Father and God, and the author or cause to him of being powerful, and Lord, and God,” Cont. Tryph. Pars secund. And again, he expressly affirms him “to be begotten by the will of his Father.” In like manner Tatian, “that he did come forth by the pure will of the Father.” And Tertullian, Cont. Prax. “He then first produced the Word, when it first pleased him.” I do not take upon me to defend any of these opinions, but only to represent them as I find them; and I think the three particulars I have mentioned were the most material differences between the contending parties.
I know the enemies of Arius charged him with many other principles; but as it is the common fate of religious disputes to be managed with an intemperate heat, it is no wonder his opponents should either mistake or misrepresent him, and, in their warmth, charge him with consequences which either he did not see, or expressly denied. And as this appears to be the case, no wonder the controversy was never fairly managed, nor brought to a friendly and peaceable issue. Many methods were tried, but all in vain, to bring Alexander and Arius to a reconciliation, the emperor himself condescending to become a mediator between them.
The first step he took to heal this breach was right and prudent: he sent his letters to Alexandria,[91] exhorting Alexander and Arius to lay aside their differences, and become reconciled to each other. He tells them, that “after he had diligently examined the rise and foundation of this affair, he found the occasion of the difference to be very trifling, and not worthy such furious contentions; and that therefore he promised himself that his mediation between them for peace, would have the desired effect.” He tells Alexander, “that he required from his presbyter a declaration of their sentiments concerning a silly, empty question.” And Arius, “that he had imprudently uttered what he should not have even thought of, or what at least he ought to have kept secret in his own breast; and that therefore questions about such things should not have been asked; or if they had, should not have been answered; that they proceeded from an idle itch of disputation, and were in themselves of so high and difficult a nature, as that they could not be exactly comprehended, or suitably explained;” and that to insist on such points too much before the people, could produce no other effect, than to make some of them talk blasphemy, and others turn schismatics; and that therefore, “as they did not contend about any essential doctrine of the gospel, nor introduce any new heresy concerning the worship of God,” they should again communicate with each other; and finally, that notwithstanding their sentiments in these unnecessary and trifling matters were different from each other, they should acknowledge one another as brethren, and, laying aside their hatreds, return to a firmer friendship and affection than before.
But religious hatreds are not so easily removed, and the ecclesiastical combatants were too warmly engaged to follow this kind and wholesome advice. The bishops of each side had already interested the people in their quarrel,[92] and heated them into such a rage that they attacked and fought with, wounded and destroyed each other, and acted with such madness as to commit the greatest impieties for the sake of orthodoxy; and arrived to that pitch of insolence, as to offer great indignities to the imperial images. The old controversy about the time of celebrating Easter being now revived, added fuel to the flames, and rendered their animosities too furious to be appeased.
[M]Constantine being greatly disturbed upon this account, sent letters to the bishops of the several provinces of the empire to assemble together at Nice in Bithynia, and accordingly great numbers of them came, A. C. 325,[93] some through hopes of profit, and others out of curiosity to see such a miracle of an emperor, and many of them upon much worse accounts. The number of them was 318, besides vast numbers of presbyters, deacons, Acolythists, and others. The ecclesiastical historians tell us, that in this vast collection of bishops some “were remarkable for their gravity, patience under sufferings, modesty, integrity, eloquence, courteous behaviour,” and the like virtues; that “some were venerable for their age, and others excelled in their youthful vigour, both of body and mind.” They are called “an army of God, mustered against the devil: a great crown or garland of priests, composed and adorned with the fairest flowers; confessors: a crowd of martyrs; a divine and memorable assembly; a divine choir,” &c. But yet they all agree that there were others of very different characters. Eusebius tells us, that after the emperor had ended his speech, exhorting them to peace, “some of them began to accuse their neighbours, others to vindicate themselves, and recriminate; that many things of this nature were urged on both sides, and many quarrels or debates arose in the beginning;” and that some came to the council with worldly views of gain. Theodorit says,[94] that those of the Arian party “were subtle and crafty, and like shelves under water concealed their wickedness;” that amongst the orthodox some of them “were of a quarrelling malicious temper, and accused several of the bishops, and that they presented their accusatory libels to the emperor.” Socrates says that “very many of them, the major part of them, accused one another; and that many of them the day before the emperor came to the council, had delivered in to him libels of accusations, or petitions against their enemies.” Sozomen goes farther, and tells us, “that as it usually comes to pass, many of the priests came together, that they might contend earnestly about their own affairs, thinking they had now a fit opportunity to redress their grievances; and, that every one presented a libel to the emperor, of the matters of which he accused others, enumerating his particular grievances. And that this happened almost every day.” Gelasius Cyzicenus’s account of them is,[95] “that when all the bishops were gathered together, according to custom, there happened many debates and contentions amongst the bishops, each one having matters of accusation against the other. Upon this they gave in libels of accusation to the emperor, who received them; and when he saw the quarrels of such bishops with one another, he said, &c. and endeavoured to conceal the wicked attempts of such bishops from the knowledge of those without doors.” So that, notwithstanding the encomiums of this council, the evil spirit had plainly got amongst them; for after the emperor had exhorted them to lay aside all their differences, and to enter into measures of union and peace, instead of applying themselves to the work for which they were convened, they began shamefully to accuse each other, and raised great disturbances in the council by their mutual charges and reproaches. Sabinus also saith,[96] they were generally a set of very ignorant men, and destitute of knowledge and learning. But as Sabinus was an heretic of the Macedonian sect, probably his testimony may be thought exceptionable; and even supposing his charge to be true, yet [N]Socrates brings them off by telling us, that they were enlightened by God, and the grace of his holy spirit, and so could not possibly err from the truth. But as some men may possibly question the truth of their inspiration, so I think it appears but too plain, that an assembly of men, who met together with such different views, were so greatly prejudiced and inflamed against other, and are supposed, many of them, to be ignorant, till they received miraculous illuminations from God, did not seem very likely to heal the differences of the church, or to examine with that wisdom, care, and impartiality, or to enter into those measures of condescension and forbearance that were necessary to lay a solid foundation for peace and unity.
However, the emperor brought them at last to some temper, so that they fell in good earnest to creed-making, and drew up, and subscribed that, which, from the place where they were assembled, was called the Nicene. By the accounts of the transactions in this assembly, given by [O]Athanasius himself, in his letter to the African bishops,[97] it appears, that they were determined to insert into the creed such words as were most obnoxious to the Arians, and thus to force them to a public separation from the church. For when they resolved to condemn some expressions which the Arians were charged with making use of, such as, “the Son was a creature; there was a time when he was not,” and the like; and to establish the use of others in their room, such as, “the Son was the only begotten of God by nature, the Word, the Power, the only Wisdom of the Father, and true God;” the Arians immediately agreed to it: upon this the fathers made an alteration, and explained the words, “from God,” by the Son’s “being of the substance of God.” And when the Arians consented also to this, the bishops farther added, to render the creed more exceptionable, that “he was consubstantial, or of the same substance with the Father.” And when the Arians objected, that this expression was wholly unscriptural, the Orthodox urged, that though it was so, yet the bishops that lived an hundred and thirty years before them, made use of it. At last, however, all the council subscribed the creed thus altered and amended, except five bishops, who were displeased with the word “consubstantial,” and made many objections against it: and of these five, three, viz. Eusebius, Theognis, and Maris, seem afterwards to have complied with the rest, excepting only, that they refused to subscribe to the condemnation of Arius.
Eusebius,[98] bishop of Cæsarea, was also in doubt for a considerable time, whether he should set his hand to it, and refused to do it, till the exceptionable words had been fully debated amongst them, and he had obtained an explication of them suitable to his own sentiments. Thus when it was asserted by the creed, that “the Son was of the Father’s substance,” the negative explication agreed to by the bishops was exactly the same thing that was asserted by Arius, viz. that “he was not a part of the Father’s substance.” Again, as the words “begotten, not made,” were applied to the Son, they determined the meaning to be, that “the Son was produced after a different manner than the creatures which he made,” and was therefore of a more excellent nature than any of the creatures, and that the manner of his generation could not be understood. This was the very doctrine of Arius, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who declared, that “as the Son was no part of God, so neither was he from any thing created, and that the manner of his generation was not to be described.” And as to the word “consubstantial” to the Father, it was agreed by the council to mean no more, than that “the Son had no likeness with any created Beings, but was in all things like to him that begot him, and that he was not from any other hypostasis, or substance, but the Father’s.” Of this sentiment also were Arius, and Eusebius his friend, who maintained not only his being of a more excellent original than the creatures, but that he was formed “of an immutable and ineffable substance and nature, and after the most perfect likeness of the nature and power of him that formed him.” These were the explications of these terms agreed to by the council, upon which Eusebius, of Cæsarea, subscribed them in the creed; and though some few of the Arian bishops refused to do it, yet it doth not appear to me, that it proceeded from their not agreeing in the sense of these explications, but because they apprehended that the words were very improper, and implied a great deal more than was pretended to be meant by them; and especially, because an anathema was added upon all who should presume not to believe in them and use them. Eusebius, of Cæsarea, gives a very extraordinary reason for his subscribing this anathema, viz. because “it forbids the use of unscriptural words, the introducing which he assigns as the occasion of all the differences and disturbances which had troubled the church.” But had he been consistent with himself, he ought never to have subscribed this creed, for the very reason he alledges why he did it; because the anathema forbids only the unscriptural words of Arius, such as, “He was made out of nothing; there was a time when he was not,” and the like; but allowed and made sacred the unscriptural expressions of the orthodox, viz. “Of the Father’s substance, and consubstantial,” and cut off from Christian communion those who would not agree to them, though they were highly exceptionable to the Arian party, and afterwards proved the occasions of many cruel persecutions and evils.
In this public manner did the bishops assert a dominion over the faith and consciences of others, and assume a power, not only to dictate to them what they should believe, but even to anathematize, and expel from the Christian church, all who refused to submit to their decisions, and own their authority.[99] For after they had carried their creed, they proceeded to excommunicate Arius and his followers, and banished Arius from Alexandria. They also condemned his explication of his own doctrine, and a certain book, called Thalia, which he had written concerning it. After this they sent letters to Alexandria, and to the brethren in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, to acquaint them with their decrees, and to inform them, that the holy synod had condemned the opinions of Arius, and were so zealous in this affair, that they had not patience so much as to hear his ungodly doctrine and blasphemous words, and that they had fully determined the time for the celebration of Easter. Finally, they exhort them to rejoice, for the good deeds they had done, and for that they had cut off all manner of heresy, and to pray, that their right transactions might be established by Almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ. When these things were over, Constantine[100] splendidly treated the bishops, filled their pockets, and sent them honourably home; advising them at parting to maintain peace amongst themselves, and that none of them should envy another who might excel the rest in wisdom and eloquence, and that such should not carry themselves haughtily towards their inferiors, but condescend to, and bear with their weakness. A plain demonstration that he saw into their tempers, and was no stranger to the pride and haughtiness that influenced some, and the envy and hatred that actuated others. After he had thus dismissed them he sent several letters, recommending and enjoining an universal conformity to the council’s decrees both in ceremony and doctrine, using, among other things, this argument for it,[101] “That what they had decreed was the will of God, and that the agreement of so great a number of such bishops, was by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”
It is natural here to observe, that the anathemas and depositions agreed on by this council, and confirmed by the imperial authority, were the beginning of all those persecutions that afterwards raged against each party in their turns. As the civil power had now taken part in the controversies about religion, by authorising the dominion of the bishops over the consciences of others, enforcing their ecclesiastical constitutions, and commanding the universal reception of that faith they had decreed to be orthodox; it was easy to foresee, that those who opposed them would employ the same arts and authority to establish their own faith and power, and to oppress their enemies, the first favourable opportunity that presented: and this the event abundantly made good. And, indeed, how should it be otherwise? For doctrines that are determined merely by dint of numbers, and the awes of worldly power, carry no manner of conviction in them, and are not likely therefore to be believed on these accounts by those who have once opposed them. And as such methods of deciding controversies equally suit all principles, the introducing them by any party, gives but too plausible a pretence to every party, when uppermost, to use them in their turn; and though they may agree well enough with the views of spiritual ambition, yet they can be of no service in the world to the interest of true religion, because they are directly contrary to the nature and spirit of it; and because arguments, which equally prove the truth and excellency of all principles, cannot in the least prove the truth of any.
If one may form a judgment of the persons who composed this council, from the small accounts we have left of them, they do not, I think, appear to have met so much with a design impartially to debate on the subjects in controversy, as to establish their own authority and opinions, and oppress their enemies. For besides what hath been already observed concerning their temper and qualifications, [P]Theodorit informs us,[102] that when those of the Arian party proposed in writing, to the synod, the form of faith they had drawn up, the bishops of the orthodox side no sooner read it, but they gravely tore it in pieces, and called it a spurious and false confession; and after they had filled the place with noise and confusion, universally accused them of betraying the doctrine according to godliness. Doth such a method of proceeding suit very well with the character of a synod inspired, as the good emperor declared, by the Holy Ghost? Is truth and error to be decided by noise and tumult? Was this the way to convince gainsayers, and reconcile them to the unity of the faith? Or could it be imagined, that the dissatisfied part of this venerable assembly would acquiesce in the tyrannical determination of such a majority, and patiently submit to excommunication, deposition, and the condemnation of their opinions, almost unheard, and altogether unexamined? How just is the censure passed by [Q]Gregory Nazianzen[103] upon councils in general? “If,” says he, “I must speak the truth, this is my resolution, to avoid all councils of the bishops, for I have not seen any good end answered by any synod whatsoever; for their love of contention, and their lust of power, are too great even for words to express.” The emperor’s conduct to the bishops met at Nice[104] is full proof of the former; for when they were met in council, they immediately fell to wrangling and quarrelling, and were not to be appeased and brought to temper, till Constantine interposed, artfully persuading some, shaming others into silence, and heaping commendations on those fathers that spoke agreeable to his sentiments. The decisions they made concerning the faith, and their excommunications and depositions of those who differed from them, demonstrate also their affectation of power and dominion. But as they had great reason to believe, that their own decrees would be wholly insignificant, without the interposition of the imperial authority to enforce them, they soon obtained their desires; and prevailed with the emperor to confirm all they had determined, and to enjoin all Christians to submit themselves to their decisions.
His first letters to this purpose were mild and gentle,[105] but he was soon persuaded by his clergy into more violent measures; for out of his great zeal to extinguish heresy, he put forth public edicts, against the authors and maintainers of it; and particularly against the Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionists, and others, whom after reproaching “with being enemies of truth, destructive counsellors, and with holding opinions suitable to their crimes,” he deprives of the liberty of meeting together for worship, either in public or private places, and gives all their oratories to the orthodox church. And with respect to the Arians,[106] he banished Arius himself,[107] ordered all his followers, as absolute enemies of Christ, to be called Porphyrians, from [R]Porphyrius, an heathen, who wrote against Christianity; ordained that the books written by them should be burnt, that there might be no remains of their doctrine left to posterity; and most cruelly commanded, that if ever any one should dare to keep in his possession any book written by Arius, and should not immediately burn it, he should be no sooner convicted of the crime but he should suffer death. He afterwards put forth a fresh edict against the recusants, by which he took from them their places of worship, and prohibited not only their meeting in public, but even in any private houses whatsoever.
Thus the orthodox first brought in the punishment of heresy with death,[108] and persuaded the emperor to destroy those whom they could not easily convert. The scriptures were now no longer the rule and standard of the Christian faith. Orthodoxy and heresy were from henceforward to be determined by the decisions of councils and fathers, and religion to be propagated no longer by the apostolic methods of persuasion, forbearance, and the virtues of an holy life, but by imperial edicts and decrees; and heretical gainsayers not to be convinced, that they might be brought to the acknowledgment of the truth and be saved, but to be persecuted and destroyed. It is no wonder, that after this there should be a continual fluctuation of the public faith, just as the prevailing parties had the imperial authority to support them, or that we should meet with little else in ecclesiastical history but violence and cruelties committed by men who had left the simplicity of the Christian faith and profession, enslaved themselves to ambition and avarice, and had before them the ensnaring views of temporal grandeur, high preferments, and large revenues. “Since the time that avarice hath encreased in the churches,” says [S]St. Jerome,[109] “the law is perished from the priest, and the vision from the prophet. Whilst all contend for the episcopal power, which they unlawfully seize on without the church’s leave, they apply to their own uses all that belongs to the Levites. The miserable priest begs in the streets—they die with hunger who are commanded to bury others. They ask for mercy who are commanded to have mercy on others—the priests’ only care is to get money—hence hatreds arise through the avarice of the priests; hence the bishops are accused by their clergy; hence the quarrels of the prelates; hence the causes of desolations; hence the rise of their wickedness.” Religion and Christianity seem indeed to be the least thing that either the contending parties had at heart, by the infamous methods they took to establish themselves and ruin their adversaries.
If one reads the complaints of the orthodox writers against the Arians, one would think the Arians the most execrable set of men that ever lived, they being loaded with all the crimes that can possibly be committed, and represented as bad, or even worse, than the devil himself. But no wise man will easily credit these accounts, which the orthodox give of their enemies, because, as Socrates tells us,[110] “This was the practice of the bishops towards all they deposed, to accuse and pronounce them impious, but not to tell others the reasons why they accused them as such.” It was enough for their purpose to expose them to the public odium, and make them appear impious to the multitude, that so they might get them expelled from their rich sees, and be translated to them in their room. And this they did as frequently as they could, to the introducing infinite calamities and confusions into the Christian church. And if the writings of the Arians had not been prudently destroyed, I doubt not but we should have found as many charges laid by them, with equal justice, against the orthodox, as the orthodox have produced against them; their very suppression of the Arian writings being a very strong presumption against them, and the many imperial edicts of Constantine, Theodosius, Valentinian, Martian, and others, against heretics, being an abundant demonstration that they had a deep share in the guilt of persecution.
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his letter to the bishop of Constantinople,[111] complains that Arius and others, desirous of power and riches, did day and night invent calumnies, and were continually exciting seditions and persecutions against him; and Arius in his turn, in his letter to Eusebius, of Nicomedia, with too much justice charges pope Alexander with violently persecuting and oppressing him upon account of what he called the truth, and using every method to ruin him, driving him out of the city as an atheistical person, for not agreeing with him in his sentiments about the Trinity. Athanasius also bitterly exclaims against the cruelty of the Arians, in his Apology for his flight.[112] “Whom have they not,” says he, “used with the greatest indignity that they have been able to lay hold of? Who hath ever fallen into their hands, that they have had any spite against, whom they have not so cruelly treated, as either to murder or to maim him? What place is there where they have not left the monuments of their barbarity? What church is there which doth not lament their treachery against their bishops?” After this passionate exclamation he mentions several bishops they had banished or put to death, and the cruelties they made use of to force the orthodox to renounce the faith, and to subscribe to the truth of the Arian doctrines. But might it not have been asked, who was it that first brought in excommunications, depositions, banishments, and death, as the punishments of heresy? Could not the Arians recriminate with justice? Were they not reproached as atheists, anathematized, expelled their churches, exiled, and made liable to the punishment of death by the orthodox? Did not even they who complained of the cruelty of the Arians in the most moving terms, create numberless confusions and slaughters by their violent intrusions into the sees of their adversaries? Was not Athanasius himself also accused to the emperor, by many bishops and clergymen, who declared themselves orthodox, of being the author of all the seditions and disturbances in the church,[113] by excluding great multitudes from the public services of it; of murdering some, putting others in chains, punishing others with stripes and whippings, and of burning churches? And if the enemies of Athanasius[114] endeavoured to ruin him by suborned witnesses and false accusations, Athanasius himself used the same practices to destroy his adversaries; and particularly Eusebius of Nicomedia, by spiriting up a woman to charge Eusebius with illicit connections, the falsehood of which was detected at the council of Tyre. His very ordination also to the bishopric of Alexandria, was censured as clandestine and illegal. These things being reported to Constantine,[115] he ordered a synod to meet at Cæsarea in Palestine, of which place Eusebius Pamphilus was bishop, before whom Athanasius refused to appear. But after the council was removed to Tyre, he was obliged by force to come thither, and commanded to answer to the several crimes objected against him. Some of them he cleared himself of, and as to others he desired more time for his vindication. At length, after many sessions, both his accusers, and the multitude who were present in the council, demanded his deposition as an impostor, a violent man, and unworthy the priesthood. Upon this, Athanasius fled from the synod; after which they condemned him, and deprived him of his bishopric, and ordered he should never more enter Alexandria, to prevent his exciting tumults and seditions. They also wrote to all the bishops to have no communion with him, as one convicted of many crimes, and as having convicted himself by his flight of many others, to which he had not answered. And for this their procedure they assigned these reasons; that he despised the emperor’s orders, by not coming to Cæsarea; that he came with a great number of persons to Tyre, and excited tumults and disturbances in the council, sometimes refusing to answer to the crimes objected against him, at other times reviling all the bishops; sometimes not obeying their summons, and at others refusing to submit to their judgment; that he was fully and evidently convicted of breaking in pieces the sacred cup, by six bishops who had been sent into Egypt to inquire out the truth. Athanasius, however, appealed to Constantine,[116] and prayed him, that he might have the liberty of making his complaints in the presence of his judges. Accordingly Eusebius of Nicomedia, and other bishops came to Constantinople, where Athanasius was; and in an hearing before the emperor, they affirmed that the council of Tyre had done justly in the cause of Athanasius, produced their witnesses as to the breaking of the sacred cup, and laid many other crimes to his charge. And though Athanasius seems to have had the liberty he desired of confronting his accusers, yet he could not make his innocence appear: for notwithstanding he had endeavoured to prejudice the emperor against what they had done, yet he confirmed their transactions, commended them as a set of wise and good bishops, censured Athanasius as a seditious, insolent, injurious person, and banished him to Treves, in France. And when the people of Alexandria, of Athanasius’s party, tumultuously cried out for his return, Antony the Great, a monk, wrote often to the emperor in his favour. The emperor in return wrote to the Alexandrians, and charged them with madness and sedition, and commanded the clergy and nuns to be quiet; affirming he could not alter his opinion, nor recall Athanasius, “being condemned by an ecclesiastical judgment as an exciter of sedition.” He also wrote to the monk, telling him it was impossible “he should disregard the sentence of the council,” because that though a few might pass judgment through hatred or affection, yet it was not probable that such a large number of famous and good bishops should be of such a sentiment and disposition; for that Athanasius was an injurious and insolent man, and the cause of discord and sedition.
Indeed Athanasius, notwithstanding his sad complaints under persecution, and his expressly calling it a diabolical invention,[117] yet seems to be against it only when he and his own party were persecuted, but not against persecuting the enemies of orthodoxy. In his letter to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, he saith,[118] “I wonder that your piety hath suffered these things,” (viz. the heresies he had before mentioned) “and that you did not immediately put those heretics under restraint, and propose the true faith to them; that if they would not forbear to contradict they might be declared heretics; for it is not to be endured that these things should be either said or heard amongst Christians.” And in another place[119] he says “that they ought to be had in universal hatred for opposing the truth;” and comforts himself, that the emperor, upon due information, would put a stop to their wickedness, and that they would not be long lived. And to mention no more, “I therefore exhort you,” says he,[120] “let no one be deceived; but as though the Jewish impiety was prevailing over the faith of Christ, be ye all zealous in the Lord. [121]And let every one hold fast the faith he hath received from the fathers, which also the fathers met together at Nice declared in writing, and endure none of those who may attempt to make any innovations therein.” It is needless to produce more instances of this kind; whosoever gives himself the trouble of looking over any of the writings of this father, will find in them the most furious invectives against the Arians, and that he studiously endeavours to represent them in such colours, as might render them the abhorrence of mankind, and excite the world to their utter extirpation.